植物进化发育生物学的形成与研究进展

植物进化发育生物学是最近十几年来才兴起的一门学科,它是进化发育生物学的主要分支之一。进化发育生物学的产生经历了进化生物学与胚胎学、遗传学和发育生物学的三次大的综合,其历史可追溯到19世纪初冯.贝尔所创立的比较胚胎学。相关研究曾沉寂了近一个世纪,直到20世纪80年代早期,动物中homeobox基因被发现,90年代初花发育的ABC模型被提出,加之对发育相关基因研究的不断深入,才使基因型与表型联系了起来,进而促进了进化发育生物学的飞速发展。目前进化发育生物学已成为21世纪生命科学领域的研究热点之一。本文详细阐述了进化发育生物学产生和发展的历程,综述了最近十几年来植物进化发育生物学的主要研究进展。文中重点介绍了与植物发育密切相关的MADS-box基因在植物各大类群中的研究现状,讨论了植物进化发育生物学领域的研究成果对花被演化、花对称性以及叶的进化等重要问题的启示。     

植物进化发育生物学的形成与研究进展

植物进化发育生物学是最近十几年来才兴起的一门学科, 它是进化发育生物学的主要分支之一。进化发育生物学的产生经历了进化生物学与胚胎学、遗传学和发育生物学的三次大的综合, 其历史可追溯到19世纪初冯.贝尔所创立的比较胚胎学。相关研究曾沉寂了近一个世纪, 直到20世纪80年代早期, 动物中homeobox基因被发现, 90年代初花发育的 ABC模型被提出, 加之对发育相关基因研究的不断深入, 才使基因型与表型联系了起来, 进而促进了进化发育生物学的飞速发展。目前进化发育生物学已成为21世纪生命科学领域的研究热点之一。本文详细阐述了进化发育生物学产生和发展的历程, 综述了最近十几年来植物进化发育生物学的主要研究进展。文中重点介绍了与植物发育密切相关的MADS-box基因在植物各大类群中的研究现状, 讨论了植物进化发育生物学领域的研究成果对花被演化、花对称性以及叶的进化等重要问题的启示。     

以发育模块重复征用和整合为基础的进化创新机制

进化新征的起源和分化是进化发育生物学研究的核心问题。通过对多细胞生物早期发育调控机制的比较分析,发现亲缘关系较远的生物所共有的一些形态特征受保守的发育调控程序调节（深同源性）。许多创新性状的发生是基于对预先存在的基因或发育调控模块的重复利用和整合。发育基因调控网络在结构和功能上高度模块化,因此不仅可以通过模块拆分和重复征用改变发育程式,而且也增强了调控网络自身的进化力。研究基因调控网络和发育系统的进化动态将有助于更深入地认识生物演化过程中创新性状发生和表型进化的分子机制。     

表遗传学几个重要问题的述评

表遗传学(Epigenetics)是研究没有DNA序列变化的、可遗传的表达改变。表遗传学的发展弥补了传统遗传学的不足,促进了遗传学的发展。表遗传学与传统遗传学之间的关系有如阴阳,它们既相区别,又彼此协同参与发育和进化等重要生物学过程的调控,构成了遗传学密不可分的两个组成部分。文章讨论了表遗传学的定义、研究内涵和中文译名等问题。     

环境信号诱导发育的可塑性

有关环境因素作为影响发育的信号导致产生表观多型性的研究,属于遗传学、发育生物学、进化生物学和生态学研究领域的热点问题,在长期的积淀和拓展中形成了一门新的交叉学科——生态发育生物学。该学科以发育的可塑性为理论基础,研究多种环境因子诱导机体在发育中产生表观多型性的机制,包括非遗传多型性和应激性多型性。对于环境、发育和进化三者关系的研究尤为重视。本文介绍了该学科形成的背景,并对其研究主题进行分析和归纳,重点讨论了不同环境因子导致动物表观多型性的机制,包括季节和捕食者诱导的非遗传多型性,营养和激素调节社会性昆虫的品级分化,温度依赖型性别决定中的基因、酶与激素,动物对环境的适应与进化,机体的免疫应答与神经元的可塑性、环境污染物的致畸作用等。并对生态学与发育生物学结合的未来研究前景做了展望。     

基因及其顺式调控元件在动物表型进化中的作用

顺式调控假说是当前进化发育生物学中重要的理论之一, 该假说认为顺式调控元件的进化是调控外表性状进化的主要遗传机制。然而越来越多的实验结果表明, 仅靠顺式调控假说远不足以解释复杂的进化发育过程, 其他因素也会导致表型的进化, 如：与顺式调控元件相联基因的蛋白序列改变; 基因及染色体组复制; 蛋白结构域与顺式调控元件的灵活性等。文章回顾了近年来顺式调控元件以及与顺式调控元件相联基因的进化发育研究, 探讨了进化发育生物学研究的新方法与新思路。     

中国兽类遗传与进化研究进展与展望

中国兽类物种丰富,且具有150个特有种。本文综述了60年来中国兽类遗传与进化的研究进展,内容涵盖系统发育关系重建、遗传多样性评估、种群遗传结构、适应性进化以及趋同进化的分子机制。本文重点概述了食肉目（大、小熊猫）、有蹄类、翼手目、灵长目、小型兽类以及海兽类等重要类群的研究进展,为中国兽类的物种保护提供了重要资料。另外,本文还对中国兽类遗传与进化研究未来的研究方向提出几点建议,包括运用各种组学技术、筛选新型遗传标记和候选基因（调控序列）、结合表观遗传学并借助进化发育生物学研究方法,以期全面深入地理解中国兽类分类地位、起源以及特异表型产生和独特适应的发育遗传学机制等,进而实现“天人合一”保护生物学的新理念和新愿景。     

浅谈"协同进化"

“协同进化”(Coevolution)一词是 196 4年 Ehrhich和 Raven在《Evolution》(进化 )杂志上正式首次提出 ,用以阐述昆虫与植物 (蝴蝶及其采食植物之间 )进化历程中的相互关系。现已广泛用于描述自然界中相互之间有密切关系的物种 (甚至器官 )的进化模式 ,是进化生物学、系统学、生态学乃至发育生物学等学科的一个研究热点。援引《Biology》(Starr主编 ,1994 ,第 2版 )中的定义 ,协同进化是指自然生境中两个或多个物种 ,由于生态上的密切联系 ,其进化历程相互依赖 ,当一个物种进化时 ,物种间的选择压力发生改变 ,其他物种将发生与之相适应…     

形态性状、分子性状与同源性

“同源性(homology)”是生物学中最基本的概念之一。近年来, 随着分子生物学、生物信息学、发育生物学以及进化发育遗传学等学科的快速发展, 同源性一词在形态性状的比较、核苷酸和氨基酸序列的分析以及探讨形态性状进化的分子机制等方面都有广泛应用。然而, 由于不同的研究者对同源性概念的理解有所不同, 在实际应用中难免会出现不恰当使用“同源性”一词并得出错误结论的情况。本文从不同的角度介绍了如何对同源性进行判断以及影响同源性判断的因素。并指出正确理解同源性这一概念的含义, 以及通过综合各方面的证据对同源性进行推断对于揭示基因型和表型的进化以及二者之间的关系非常重要。     

形态性状、分子性状与同源性

“同源性（homology）”是生物学中最基本的概念之一。近年来,随着分子生物学、生物信息学、发育生物学以及进化发育遗传学等学科的快速发展,同源性一词在形态性状的比较、核苷酸和氨基酸序列的分析以及探讨形态性状进化的分子机制等方面都有广泛应用。然而,由于不同的研究者对同源性概念的理解有所不同,在实际应用中难免会出现不恰当使用“同源性”一词并得出错误结论的情况。本文从不同的角度介绍了如何对同源性进行判断以及影响同源性判断的因素。并指出正确理解同源性这一概念的含义,以及通过综合各方面的证据对同源性进行推断对于揭示基因型和表型的进化以及二者之间的关系非常重要。     

Embryology and evolution 1920-1960: worlds apart?

During the early part of the 20th century most embryologists were skeptical about the significance of Mendelian genetics to embryological development. A few embryologists began to study the developmental effects of Mendelian genes around 1940. Such work was a necessary step on the path to modern developmental biology. It occurred during the time when the Evolutionary Synthesis was integrating Mendelian and population genetics into a unified evolutionary theory. Why did the first embryological geneticists begin their study at that particular time? One possible explanation is that developmental genetics was a potential avenue of alliance between embryology and evolutionary biology, two fields that had been separated since the 1890s. To assess this possible motive it is necessary to explore the methodological contrasts that obtained between embryology and both Mendelian-chromosomal genetics and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Some of these contrasts persist to the present day.     

The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology

The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics.     

Caenorhabditis evolution: if they all look alike, you aren't looking hard enough

Caenorhabditis elegans is widely known as a model organism for cell, molecular, developmental and neural biology, but it is also being used for evolutionary studies. A recent meeting of researchers in Portugal covered topics as diverse as phylogenetics, genetic mapping of quantitative and qualitative intraspecific variation, evolutionary developmental biology and population genetics. Here, we summarize the main findings of the meeting, which marks the formal birth of a research community dedicated to Caenorhabditis species evolution.     

Modern evolutional developmental biology: Mechanical and molecular genetic or phenotypic approaches?

Heightened interest in the evolutionary problems of developmental biology in the 1980s was due to the success of molecular genetics and disappointment in the synthetic theory of evolution, where the chapters of embryology and developmental biology seem to have been left out. Modern evo-devo, which turned out to be antipodean to the methodology of the synthetic theory of evolution, propagandized in the development of evolutionary problems only the mechanical and molecular genetic approach to the evolution of ontogenesis, based on cellular and intercellular interactions. The phonotypical approach to the evaluation of evolutionary occurrences in ontogenesis, which aids in the joining of the genetic and epigenetic levels of research, the theory of natural selection, the nomogenetic conception, and the problem of the wholeness of the organism in onto- and phylogenesis may be against this. The phenotypic approach to ontogenesis is methodologically the most perspective for evolutionary developmental biology.     

Alfred Kühn (1885-1968) and developmental evolution

Alfred Kühn (1885-1968) was known as one of the most comprehensive zoologists of his time. His research program in developmental physiological genetics was one of the first successful attempts to integrate the experimental study of development and heredity. It led him to discover the first known reaction chain from gene to phenotype. Kühn also foresaw many elements of modern evolutionary developmental biology and as a student of Weismann and mentor to many developmental geneticists of the late 20th century directly connects Weismann with molecular developmental genetics.     

UNVEILing connections between genotype,phenotype, and fitness in natural populations

Understanding the links between genetic variation and fitness in natural populations is a central goal of evolutionary genetics. This monumental task spans the fields of classical and molecular genetics, population genetics, biochemistry, physiology, developmental biology, and ecology. Advances to our molecular and developmental toolkits are facilitating integrative approaches across these traditionally separate fields, providing a more complete picture of the genotype‐phenotype map in natural and non‐model systems. Here, we summarize research presented at the first annual symposium of the UNVEIL Network, an NSF‐funded collaboration between the University of Montana and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, which took place from the 1st to the 3rd of June, 2018. We discuss how this body of work advances basic evolutionary science, what it implies for our ability to predict evolutionary change, and how it might inform novel conservation strategies.     

Evidence for evolutionary changes in ontogeny: Paleontological, comparative-morphological, and molecular aspects

It has been noted that the integration of modern data of paleontology, comparative morphology, developmental biology, and molecular genetics forms the basis for understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary transformations of ontogeny. Paleontological and morphological evidence of the evolutionary changes in ontogeny are considered based on the data of cell and molecular biology and developmental genetics. It is shown that reorganizations of gene regulatory cascades (mainly Hox genes) play a key role in the evolution of the axial organization of animals and modifications of the limb structure of metazoans, whereas the formation of new types of structures was apparently determined by the emergence of new populations of stem cells in embryogenesis (for example, neural crest cells in the evolution of vertebrates).     

Toward a new synthesis: population genetics and evolutionary developmental biology

Despite the recent synthesis of developmental genetics and evolutionary biology, current theories of adaptation are still strictly phenomenological and do not yet consider the implications of how phenotypes are constructed from genotypes. Given the ubiquity of regulatory genetic pathways in developmental processes, we contend that study of the population genetics of these pathways should become a major research program. We discuss the role divergence in regulatory developmental genetic pathways may play in speciation, focusing on our theoretical and computational investigations. We also discuss the population genetics of molecular co-option, arguing that mutations of large effect are not needed for co-option. We offer a prospectus for future research, arguing for a new synthesis of the population genetics of development.